As for the director, Weitz also directed "About a Boy" which might be one of smartest comedies about what it means to love somebody that I've ever seen. I think he has it in him to make this work.

y'know.. like being emo, or having purple hair.

"like, srsly! lets go to the mall and be different by dressing alike!"

As for the movie or the books or whatever being anti-religion, I haven't read them but so what if they are? Whenever religious people organize a boycott or picket something, it just shows how weak their faith really is that they can't stand to let any dissenting opinion go without trying to stomp it out.

Then again, at least they're not starting riots and blowing themselves up.

one other question, are the daemons pronounced "day-mons" or "dee-mons" just curious because I've heard it both ways

I Duno, I'm a Christian, Protestant pentecostal, and it really irritates me when the Christians get in their herd pack mentality, if you think that people don't need to see the movie that's fine, tell them not to see the movie, but to organize boycotts and protests in front of theatres is stupid in my opinon. Same with the efforts to stop people from saying "Happy Holidays" and have them say "merry Christmas", yes I agree that noone should be punished for saying Merry Christmas but when you make such a big deal about it, it makes you look stupid. I think American Christians get so up in arms about the littlest things instead of doing what Jesus said to do and the early church did and that is showing love.

New Line isn't even sure if this is going to be a hit yet either.

It bugs me that the Catholic church is urging a boycott. That sort of thing immediatly elevates the boycott-ee to the top of my wish list. Just like when the BBFC use to use the Video Nasties act to ban something. Or Clockwork Orangs when you couldn't get it in the UK.

That said, being attacked by the Catholic League is enough to make anyone feel sorry for Pullman. I think he ruined the third book and by extension the trilogy with his inability to get past his own dogmatic grudge against organised religion. But the idea of his trilogy is a sound one and the trailers to the first movie make it seem every bit as good as the first book deserves.

And despite hating the third book, i'm still keen to see this in theatres because i think Weitz's adaptation will almost inevitably improve the trilogy overall (i.e. by taking out Pullman's dopey ideas in the third book).

it's a little surprising, though, that they left out the ending of the first book. i would have thought that was the strongest way to hook in audiences for the subsequent films. It certainly worked that way in the book.

As for the movie, I won't go see it, nor will I protest it. Vote with your pockebooks, my fellow believers. That's the only language Hollywood understands.

For example, I hated the fact they moved Shelob from TT into ROTK- I really felt it fucked ROTK up badly-

You may as well, it's got as much chance of existing as the Christian heaven.

or that i want to be christ?

Ghandi made fun of dumb people, too. maybe i'm hindu

or believe that "God" is another way of saying "the space-time continuum"

anyhoo nicole kidman and fake looking bears are my gripe with this movie. now lets make fun of tom cruise. everyone agrees hes crazy!

It's a uniquely American point of view that religious folk have to believe certain things to fall into the 'believable'. Which is why most Americans are fine with Muslims and Hindus, but mock Aboriginal spirit-worship or Paganism.

In my own opinion, it's all hokum and humbug, but you do whatever gets you through the night.

So far, I'm reading the first book, and it's like a really cynical Dickensian take on kids' fare. Problems I have with the book is Pullman writes as if people are at their neutral state wicked or at least selfish and snarky, and no good exists in the world in a natural state. Children are mean and cruel, savage little beasts of cunning. The 'good' ones are stupid or would seem to be in the universe he created. You can see the guy doesn't like organized religion simply from the way he writes the book.

From what I gather of the ending, he debunks the 'God' everyone worships as a pale, weak, and nonsensical non-factor. That worship of 'God' is pathetic, and leads only to evil.

It's a very cynical view, guys, but I'll say this: I work in a business where I get to see kids, possibly your kids, goofing off with a service meant for the deaf, and how they spend their free time would sicken most people. It's not cute, or as pithy as 'Hannah Montana'. Most kids these days are grim, racist little fuckers with no concept of consequence because of their child-fetishist and ignorant fuck parents. Whoops, tangent.

That said, this flick seems like a watered down version of the book, and believe me, it's palatable this way, because while JK Rowling's disdain for the machine of Christianity is cleverly disguised, Pullman's cynicism is on every page.

This is going to do well, because of the adults that go see it who hate religion, and think that Pullman's a breath of fresh air in a world of 'Jiminy Cricket-worship' disguised as entertainment.

Lastly, the movie probably begins that way because Pullman has a paragraph before the first book that describes the universe, with the exception of daemons, which he unfolds in the story. Oh, and he tries to push all those reactionary 'bible-thumper' buttons by naming people and things after the names of 'real' demons. And also manages to use the word demon to describe something cute and fluffy and wonderful. Great trick, if it works, expect Fred Phelps to banish the lot of the moviegoers to HELL for seeing this flick. *shrug*

Hey, the Devil put it best himself in an episode of "Reaper":

"My toy, I get to break it if I want."

As for Harry Potter, there's a mix of opinion among the Christians about it, especially after the 7th book. I *think* most of the groups don't have a problem with it.

Besides, there are always the Narnia books. The idea that Christians are opposed to children reading is wrong, and espousing such an opinion makes you as narrow-minded as the religious zealots.

Again, bleah, I say.

Open-mindedness is not the same as willfull ignorance or accepting willful ignorance as an alternative to plain old mindedness, much less open-mindedness.

Open-Minded ness is NOT the same as gullibility. You keep your mind open to every possibility, so that when facts appear that shake your current understanding, such as : THERE IS NO CREDIBLE PROOF OF SANTA CLAUS, you can accept them and incorporate the new data into your world view. Not, just blindly accepting whatever garbage theory and junk science gets spewed by the dirt-worshipping mental savages out there who want one thing: thought control, and behavior modification through fear and subjugation.

Don't get me wrong, Christianity has some adherents who truly believe in the redeeming power of faith in Christ and his teachings, but sadly, none of those poor fuckers get a say in Church doctrine. Poor, literally, as they believe that, like their Lord, posessions are not important, nor happiness, but telling the truth of the existence of God, and treating one another as you yourself would be treated. They don't believe in judging me for my lack of faith, because they understand that only God metes out justice and balances the scales as in 'Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord'. The true Christians are shouted down when they suggest that perhaps the church should start giving all they have to those less fortunate, possibly changing the world to benefit all, not just go to the clothes comparison ceremony each week, pretending not to masturbate or fuck or say 'fuck' when they cut off a finger accidentally....or buy their kids violent toys, or beat their wives or lust after that hot ass teenager in the choir. Repressing their selves for he sake of appearance, and mocking all that the Christ apparently held dear. True seekers of redemption are exactly as elusive as the frigging non-entity of God itself. The real Christians exist at the margins, and are spurned by the religious machinery created by the money grubbing fucks who use this tall tale to scalp and fleece the gullible at will.

I'm open-minded, but fortunately, the gift of reason and discernment hasn't left me just because I grant the infinite possibilities of reality to persuade me to another way of thinking.

And, your attempt to make me seem worse than the ignorant fucks who committed evils like the Salem Witch Trials and the Inquisition or the Catholic Church ignoring pedophelia exposes your own debate style. Painting me with that brush is just the nice ad hominem attacks one expects from zealots.

So, invoke your prayers, or fork the evil eye at me, and NOTHING will come of it! It's a fact. Like gravity is a fact. Or breathing is a fact.

Save up all your good deeds for that invisible condo in the sky, meanwhile, I'll do just whatever the fuck I like without a guy in a suit telling me what I should be doing by deciphering the poetry and texts of nomadic desert people from long ago.

Disbelief because of lack of proof is called reason. Disbelief because of a willful ignorance is what Christians do, that's being closed-minded.

Racism is abhorrent because hating someone for a genetic trait is useless scapegoating. Genetics is a fact, too, and guess what? Racism is different from Athiestic Cynicism (I'm more of an agnostic, where, like I said, you give me more than anecdotal evidence, and I'm willing to be persuaded.) How are they different? Your racist dad hates someone for something they cannot change and had no control over. I disdain Christians for their behavior, and continued behavior when alternatives to narrow-minded haranguing of women, homosexuals, and the poor alike.

If there is a Christ returning to the Earth, remember that in the Revelation to John, he saw that many will call out to him saying 'Lord, Lord!' and guess what? Christ looks at them and shakes his head saying 'You never knew me'. Why wait for Revelation to come? Why not call a spade a spade, and say that these people aren't Christians, but power-hungry and willfully ignorant folks. Yeah, I'm cynical, but that comes from being irradiated by the belief structure from an early age and being a believer until realizing that things were being omitted from the church's teachings when it was inconvenient to them to admit. A Bible scholar I went to said the most brilliant thing about the Bible I've ever heard...'Many so-called Christians come to the Bible with questions that the authors did not intend or presume to have answers for.' He was a Christian, and in the sense of a man I would look at and say; 'That guy knows his stuff, and still lives the life Christ would want him to, I suppose.'...But there are still billions hooking their wagons to the star of faith that is in Man not Christ.

I prefer Paul's statement of conjecture to the Romans when someone asks me about the Bible: Romans 12:14 'So then each of us must give an account of himself to God.'

I don't cotton to being called a racist or my dislike of modern zealots being compared to racism. I dislike something that could be changed, but don't seem likely to, and that is DEFINITELY cynicism, but no, not racism.

But, to me my disbelief comes from proof positive that there is no God in the terms that people are pushing in the pews of modern Christianity.

And to Freake...Hey, look, you know what? Christ would spit the milktoast, lukewarm majority 'Christians' out of his mouth, you know that? You allowed HIS church to be taken over by the Phelpses and Robertsons and Helmses and pedophile priests. The Pharisees and Money Changers are among you and while you claim to lament it, NOTHING is BEING DONE. There's even a warmongering douche in the White House claiming his Christian faith, and lots and lots of Americans saying 'Yeah! That guy is a CHRISTIAN'!! Really? Shock and Awe? Bomb the shit out of them? Christian doctrine? Or total, immeasurable BULLSHIT?

If the bad rap Christianity is getting causes you to 'shrug' and go on your way to put up your Christmas Tree and find your Easter Eggs, then you must not give much of a damn about your 'sacred' belief in God, no? If that's what you allow to represent your Church then you are just as culpable by your inaction as those committing the crimes. Jesus himself in the Bible casts the same aspersions on the so called faithful who allowed the Church to become a den of thieves waaay back then according to the written Word.

Take back your Church, is what I'm saying, if you truly believe the codswallop in the Bibble that people attempt to pass off as genuine fact.

I'd prefer not to call myself an athiest, because soon, there will be proof of a power that governs all, a unification theory that shows all are joined by governing and measurable forces, and we're all the same stuff deep down, and all can believe in the 'big electron'. The possibility of God as a 'big invisible all powerful man who gives a shit' doesn't come to mind as remotely likely. A loving creator or wise counselor, or king of all men, seems like the invention of a imagination-lacking person, not a divine entity.

I respect a person and their beliefs and won't bust their balls directly as long as they keep me out of their nonsense. I worry about a group of people with those beliefs shouting and nodding along with a leader. But I fucking stay awake at night imagining the evils a society based on this crap can pull with people just shaking their heads sadly saying 'But REAL Christians aren't like THAT.' Tell it to the dead, as if they'd care.

Amadeo, you seem like a generous soul, and will have well-adjusted and normal kids, and it's good to hear that kind of rationality about the worldview out there. I don't hate Christians. I disdain the modern Church in all its permutations.

the Catholic League is its own worst enemy, because nothing is gonna make them look stupider than campaigning against this movie. if the church is so weak that a hollywood adaptation of a fantasy trilogy is enough to bring it down, then maybe it deserves what it gets.

my complaint with Pullman's 3rd book isn't its atheism - i was looking forward to a decent war on heaven from the beginning - my problem was the sophomoric nature of the story, and the way it ruined what was otherwise a promising series.

I was asked, 'Would Jesus come to your church?' when I was younger, and I answered 'Not at all.' For this, I was rebuked by the teachers of the school (a Baptist Middle School) and not asked the reasoning behind my answer which was "Christ abhorred the buildings filled with public worshipers who couldn't manage simple decency and understanding for one another."

There's no credible proof for Johnny Appleseed, though he seems like a good guy, I wouldn't base a life philosophy around his teachings of being cool with people and plant trees wherever you go. Though, you could do a lot worse than that as your guiding faith.

Many DO a lot worse than that all the damned time.

It was a process as natural as erosion...An ever plodding crush of my faith under the weight of the fallacies of the church, and refusal to acknowledge things like evolution or understanding of other faiths...

Things like watching a man in our church arrested for molesting children set free, while the kindest woman I ever met was eaten alive by cancer during the same time. Taking things in stride seems to be the goal of religion, and while the woman was sentenced to die by her biological malady, she never once complained about death or the unfairness of her being struck down by the kind, loving God who allowed that monster to go free.

Lack of logic and reason became stultifying, faith overriding common experience and actual fact became irritating, and the same faces would flood the churches I went to...the few smattering true believers in Christ's message, among the vast sea of people just looking for a direction for their life, and finding it easier to believe in the invisible rather than owning up to their own damned problems.

My spirit's fine, if you could call my entity a soul or spirit. But when I look back on my faith, not once was it ever proven to me by my own witness. So, there you have it. Fact eventually eroded Faith, and I accepted the absence of God with a sigh of relief, and now live my life without the need to approve my actions against a rulebook written a long time ago by a man who spoke to the invisible.

And there, I can take pride in knowing I'M doing good. I'M choosing to be a good person, and not doing it out of fear of punishment by an all-powerful gremlin, or guilt or hope of reward...I get to take all the glory for my achievements, and I get to accept all my failures for what they are; my own deficiencies. Amadeo, have a good one.

ha ha

In the real world, nobody gives a rat's ass about which fantasy movie is better and instead blow each other up over reglious viewpoints.

Though what I said was also tongue in cheek, because fantasy movies never started or resolved any global disputes. Least, that I'm aware of. Closest we got was Tom Cruise vs. South Park, perhaps.

Maybe I'll crack open a can of Coke and think about it all for a while.... or not.

Is it critical of those in power? Yes. Is the church the one in power? Yes. But it's not an attack on Christianity. It's critical of those in power supressing anything ideologically different than what those in power believe. Why? Because those things threaten the longevity of their power when it's based in BELIEF.

From that point, I guess you could make a tenuous argument that it is critical of Christianity because it asks people to obey via their belief or otherwise be seen as a threat.

Maybe I missed something. I haven't read the other books yet, so I can't speak to how Pullman's books may change in tone after Compass.

Clockwork Orange in Britain actually has a rather interesting/ unique history. It was never actually banned- but it was impossible to get hold of in the UK.

This isn't contradictory so bear with me.

When the film was released there was one serious problem with it- Kubrick never actually finished reading the book. This is important so it is worth remembering.

Kubrick was a British resident when the film was released. Clockwork Orange is actually an arthouse film, and attracted such an audience in almost every country on the planet. With one exception. The imagery, dress, and themes of Clockwork Orange are rooted in British culture- so in this country it attracted a rather regrettable thug audience. There were several instances of beatings administered to homeless people etc, and when the guilty parties were caught, their defence was "The film made me do it" (See also: A big boy did it and ran away).

This horrified Kubrick, who withdrew it from distribution and effectively prohibited the sale of the movie in Britain.

However, even greatness has its flaws and Kubrick never actually defended the film in the media- this job fell to the author- Anthony Burgess. Burgess actually grew to despise the movie, as it is seriously lacking the final scene of the book- the redemption sequence that utterly changes the meaning. The book ends with Alex deciding to leave his evil ways behind him, whereas the film ends with his successful treatment in the hospital that returns him to his former feral state. These two endings are totally contradictory and the ending of the film actually dilutes the message of the book- that all the evil committed by Alex was committed voluntarily, and as it was his choice to start it had to be his choice to stop- man is not A Clockwork Orange.

Anywho, when Kubrick died, the prohibition died with him, making the film available in Britain for the first time in 20+ years. I was lucky enough to see a Swedish copy in the early nineties (you haven’t lived until you see Droog-speak in Swedish subtitles- hysterical), but many of my peers didn’t see it for years after that.

qualit y.

Also, it isn't the first book that is the preachy piece-of-shit, or even the second. It's the third. Which co-incidentally happens to be one of the worst books I have ever read (and I include the Jackie collins shit I read when I was a masturbation addicted teenager looking for "durty bits"). And I like the message- so that goes to show how much it sucked.

Sorry, all.

Confusing to me was that Nicole Kidman could slap her daemon, hard, and not feel it herself. This runs counter to everything set up about daemons up to this point.

Also confusing was at least one character asking her daemon a question about something she had to have known her daemon could not have known.

I haven't read the books, so for me the movie has to make sense on its own. Maybe someone can help me with these issues?

hehehehe... anyways, I'm opposed to the movie cuz it just doesn't seem that interesting. - like stardust.

pullman can say whatever he wants.

Anyway- You know the answer- It's because he is a..... (Wait for it) HYPOCRITE

if they had've chosen budidhsm instead, people would be asking for money, and declaring war in the buddha's name [i know buddhism like to say it doesn't believe in a god, but they believe in life, which is the same concept]

and nosexplease.. you mention a lot of deaths in the bible.. I guess you really hate jews, huh?

ie: still alive.

b; the greeks believed in the dead being corporeal, as did the egygptians.

and the Draugr is an early zombie

"the Epic of Gilgamesh" and "The Zombie of the great Peru" have zombies in them

yes, the War on Heaven is a great concept but hardly original to Pullman (all the themes were there in Milton). It would be fine also if Pullman was just attacking theocracy and authoritarianism in general. But whereas the first two books are basically about opposition to theocracy, Pullman doesn't even bother to disguise his beef with christianity in the third book. It's as though JK Rowling had turned to the reader halfway through the Deathly Hallows and said, "by the way, reader, in case you hadn't missed my many heavy handed hints, you should know that Voldemort represents the God of the Old Testament". Pullman attacking organised religion i don't have a problem with. Pullman's cackhanded allegory and lazy writing i do have a problem with.

It's interesting that Ursula K Le Guin's final Earthsea book, the Other Wind, has almost exactly the same target (patriarchal wizards have condemned humanity to purgatory) and outcome, but handles it infinitely better. The difference is Le Guin is too good a writer to let her issues overwhelm her story.

As for the Bible as 'Fiction'...yeah, it's mostly bullshit people told other people to get them to do what they wanted to do. From length of beards to thou shalt not eat peanuts out of the shit of donkeys-type health directives, mostly bullshit. The fearful cling to the hope of redemption and salvation from what happens after you die...(a litle thick to begin with, wouldn't you say?)..the others use it as a pedestal to stand upon to rise above others...yet still more view it as a moral compass to live their lives by. Mainly, these days it's away for the elite to wage war on the gullible and easily swayed to 'divide and conquer', appealing to the ignorant's ability to scramble when afraid.

Mal, I don't know you from Divis Mal, but here's the scoop, the Bibble isn't factually accurate: Bats aren't birds.

Women don't get 'sick' once a month, and a man who chooses to bed down a woman on her monthlies doesn't need to be shunned by her family.

Also, there's little merit to one dude putting hundreds of thousands of species into one boat, and propagating the Earth entire from Mesopotamia.

What else is bullshit in the Holly Bibble? Lots of stuff. I won't attack your faith, but I will be happy to point out the fallacy of placing your faith in bullshit, because someone has to turn on the lights around here, the dark ages are long since over. Cheers right back atcha, mister guy! ;)

Religious people do shit like that all the time, and it's just as shitty to say 'God made me do it' as it is to say 'the Devil made me do it' or 'The Grinch made me do it' or 'Mr. Snuffalupagus and the Wombles made me do it'.

I'm anti-religion and anti-extremists....Both are a little cracked. So, please don't spew that 'See?! Muslims are Kooks! Kill 'em All!' rhetoric...it's BOOOORING. Find a new scapegoat.

Here's something you can attribute to America's fucked up problem with promiscuity = sin...a guy up here in Wisconsin slipped his mistress the abortion pill, and caused her to miscarry. Wow. Marriage = Religious institution/sacred = Gift From God....Yet, he chose to off the unborn to maintain his 'appearance' of piety. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Two questions: Where did this asshole get access to TWO women? And second, does he have bucket seats, because that takes fucking BALLS to try that shit. His punishment should be the woman getting to kick him in the dick as hard as she can...but only when the fucker's not expecting it.

Oh yeah, and fucking armored bears vs. blimps and shit. ;)

Culturally, from the dress the droogs wear (is there any other nation that wears Bowler hats?), to the argot the speak (the bastardisation into English of another language- in this case, Russian), to the drugs they take (accepted "legal" drugs in milk- the sharpest piece of satire in the novel), and other mannerisms are all from the worst aspects of British culture- Burgess knew this damned well, and his Alex is an archetype British thug- in the book he beats the woman to death with a statue of Shakespeare- hence the audience reaction in Britain. I think you are referring to The Mods of the 70's I've never heard of The Dandies, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Sick Fixx- I knew about the incident, and I find it somewhat bizarre that he would recycle it. Almost all the acts of violence in the novel are traceable to actual events in (mostly London) the UK around the time he wrote it.

anyone who tells you different, my brothers, is out of his rassoodock and probably a filthy dook to boot.

And anyone that tells you otherwise, my brothers, is a domeless wonderboy, and clearly aiming for a dose of the ol' ultraviolence.